We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
""Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method""
How do ya think Climate Change...... remains at the forefront of the faulty science community ??!
Feelings is the new science.
This is what happens when Behavioral Science merges with Hard Sciences! = JUNK SCIENCE!
and of course Junk Science is FAKE SCIENCE...
99% of 'research' is bogus. You can tell from the method they fail to use !!!
Yep its bogus and the public believe them and send them the money so they enjoy a life of luxury while vomitting fake science. all these charities are in cahoots with them.
I wonder if J. Scott Armstrong follow the scientific method when he came out with these conclusions regarding the lack of scientific rigour and the motivations of those publishing it. I am looking forward to his data.
If you didn't flunk elementary school science, you would know how dumb your comment is.
LOL. I have a BS and a Masters in Engineering. I also graduated magna cum laude. Now, if you have any formal education in science or math you would know exactly what I am talking about. For instance, did he look at the actual studies or did he only look at published articles (there might be a big difference on what info is available)? Did he analyzed every single paper or did he just do a sampling? If he did a sampling, did he chose the articles analyzed randomly or did he have a method for selection? Did he do the analysis himself or did he have a team of researchers doing it? If he had a team of researchers, did he do a repeatability and reproducibility analysis? If he did, did the measured error kept him from getting meaningful results? Did he set up and independent peer study to eliminate the likelihood of subjectivity? What method did he use to measure the effect of incentives on individual authors? What standards did he use to determine statistical significance (i.e. confidence level)? Does his own study meet the standards for statistical significance? Since you are obviously uneducated, I can see where all these and other concepts might be beyond your consideration. Cheers!
Quite the Progressive, aren't you? Right away you start with the appeal to authority and then launch right into an insult. It would appear you graduated recently from a Progressive University and not surprisingly at the top of your class. The force is strong in you... your Progressive instructors are undoubtedly extremely proud of how well you took to the indoctrination.
He was challenged for his credentials so he gave them and you then respond by bitterly rebuking his listing his credentials.
His credentials seem sketchy given all of the spelling and or grammatical errors.
I guess you don't know many scientists or engineers. That's how I KNOW he's for real. They don't bother with details like spelling and grammar, but are very careful with calculations and formulae. The grant writers who get the tax payer funds for "science" are great at creative writing, the real deals not so much.
"For instance, did he look at the actual studies or did he only look at published articles..."
I think this is the point of what he is saying. The focus of his study is on what is actually published in the journals. Also note his mention of how difficult it was for him to get the raw data for one review he was asked to do. This has been an ongoing problem with climate research. Remember from about 10 years ago, Climategate? We had emails go public in which climate researchers discussing destroying their data rather than allowing it to be released to the public. When they finally lost their freedom of information act cases, we found out that they had done just that.
There is no history of routinely publishing "raw data" in science, you ignoramus. That isn't the test. Repeatability of the findings by other independent parties is the test.
Watson and Crick did not publish or even make available the "raw data" when they discovered a little thing known as DNA. Do you think they didn't follow the "scientific method"??!
Literally none of Einstein's papers would have passed this idiot's arbitrary and ideologically driven criteria for the "scientific method" since He never used experiments to source his findings (point 7 on this dunce's list).
So Einstein didn't follow the "scientific method", right? Right.
I publish the raw data. What other kind is there? Raw data is what the experiment yields. I can't get 4 for a result and publish 6. Someone repeats the experiment and gets 4 all the time. Then they question me on how I got 6. Read Einstein a lot, huh?
Right. You publish "raw data" when you color in the pattern on the back of the cereal box. Nobody does this. It isn't done. Period. If publishing "raw data" is your requirement for a study or paper to be valid then virtually none of them are. In any field. You might want to stop talking because you are making yourself look like a demonstrable idiot.
These are the same questions asked of the "97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming" authors.
You certainly graduated with cum on you somewhere. I'm not saying you gave someone blowjobs but I'm not sayin' you didn't either....
He did not claim to do a meta-analysis, which is what you seem to be describing.How did you determine the educational level of the poster plkatk? What were your methods? Were they based on data? Or was your self-righteous rant based on subjectivity? The fact that a lot of people "feel" something does not make it the truth.
Why don't you ask him, puke?
I totally agree with you! Also it seems that the author includes ALL science. He must not be reading medical "peer reviewed" articles.
Why don't you ask him rather than running your mouth on here?
Perhaps you should have proof read your document. I expected better out of someone claiming to be my better.
Good point. Though, I did not claim to know better. I just know science.
Ha ha. If only CAGW papers were challenged the same way you're challenging this one. THAT's his entire point. They aren't challenged. I have zero doubt that you've never once asked same questions about the pathetically weak Lewandowsky paper that claimed the widely cited 97% consensus. Oh wait, you didn't need to. Plenty of others have demonstrated that Lewandowsky didn't even come close to following a scientific process, but the warmists and Fake News media don't care.
Some analysis doesn't need to use the scientific method. His analysis is basically binary.
What kind of analysis in scientific journals don't need to be scientific?
In this context, the term "scientific" refers to Armstrong's standards.
Those standards, while nice, are overly narrow and cull out lots of well done good quality for poor reasons (e.g. valid but comlex methodology).
Any well done, good quality research of scientic merit should be published in a scientc joyrnsl even if it does not meet Armstong's unique standards for scientific.
How handy that must be!
A very valid point, but it is clear that an identifiable political perspective is not using the scientific method to drive what may ultimately be a an unscientific conclusion. And I agree that in principle it is better to err on the side of caution. As a scientist with a half century of experience, I do not think that CO2 is the culprit.
Goodbye troll. Blocked.
Environmental scientists/engineers don't make enough money to live a life of luxury.
Wanna bet. Face the fact that funded research has bastardized the honest research society relies on to direct the future. It's now politicized and essentially worthless. Sad thing is, it's been that way for decades. The cigarette companies paid for research to assure the public that smoking was safe and we know how that turned out.
Everybody knew that smoking cigarettes was bad for your health. At some point, a warning label was added to every pack of cigarettes. Most people ignored the label because they already knew... But the liberals ignored all of that and sued the tobacco companies. How could they sue when it was common knowledge that smoking was not healthy, and their was a warning label on every pack of cigarettes? This was nothing more than a new, creative source of revenue to fund their social programs, because they knew more tax increases would not work. The legislation would not have passed. Plus, smoking was legal and still is. Global Warming is the same thing... A liberal money grab, coz they are running out of money for their social vote-buying schemes. Socialism needs an ever-increasing amount of revenue to fund their social programs.
I like how you think.
"Global warming is the new term for government seizure of the means of production" - Michael Berry, syndicated radio show host. Pretty apt.
Bingo! And the NWO is also at play here. It all wealth re-distribution.
"How could they sue when it was common knowledge... a cigarettes?"
If you mean the lawsuit by 46 state AGs in the late 90s (Not exactly a clique of liberals!), they were suing for tobacco related health care costs based on deceptive and fraudulent practices by tobacco companies over many decades which misled the public about smoking risks, second hand smoke risks, addictiveness, etc.
"The cigarette companies paid for research to assure the public . . ." But don't forget--the anti-smoking lobbies paid for research to scare the daylights out of the public, including claims that turned out to be silly and unfounded, such as the alleged dangers of second-hand cigarette smoke. I've never been a smoker, by the way, and I don't like second-hand smoke. I just find that bleeding-heart liberal causes (such as anything promoted by the Ad Council) always push scientific claims into the "too-good-to-be-true" category. I tell you--the phoniness, it burns!
Second hand smoke is damaging to babies and compromised older people if in unventilated rooms. I have seen this. Otherwise the risks are grossly exaggerated, if not fabricated.
Cig companies did not do that. You have been smoking too much "merchants of doubt". Even if one stipulates that it would be one data point. That neither scientific or logical thinking
How about the fact that science was projecting a global ice age back in the 1970's. Don't check your brain off at the door and recognize that we're being played by corporate and environmental self interests.
I was assured by an AGW adherent that papers in the 1970's predicting global warming exceeded papers predicting global cooling.Not how I remembered staff room discussions at the Uni of Sydney from the early 1970's.. They were devoted to how we could reverse the probable new ice age.Of course the AGW advocate didn't produce evidence and was making the claim during the late 2000's. Definitely revisionist history.
I can help you there. AMS published a paper by Peterson in 2008 on exactly this.
"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into animminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."
Warmists are simply lying when they claim that Global Cooling didn't dominate the scientific literature in the early 1970s.
There was very little consensus at all and nothing like the domination you reference.
While there were "cooling" papers in journals, there were more "warming" papers.
I was in grade school then, but i still remember the cover of the Weekly Reader we all were given proclaiming the coming ice age.I suppose we denier types suffer from collective false memories.
Which reminds me... We were also told that we would all fry because we were burning a hole in the ozone layer through our use of aerosol propellants. What ever became of that?